Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 30, 2024, 1:45 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
#1
Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
to go fuck himself!

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/colorado...e-dispute/


Quote:Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute

Quote:In its opinion on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said the state’s Anti Discrimination Act, known as CADA, clearly prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.
It said the bakery had argued that wedding cakes inherently convey a celebratory message about marriage, and that the commission’s order therefore conflicted with the baker’s beliefs.
“We disagree,” the appeals court wrote.
Reply
#2
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
I still haven't heard that the bake shop had a problem with cakes for remarriage celebrations, so fuck them for having insincerely held religious beliefs.

And I'm not holding my breath waiting for the 'true' Christians to weigh in with their agreement either.
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#3
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
I will expect to hear the usual cries of outrage from fundamentalists claiming that they are the ones being persecuted.....by not being allowed to limit people's access to food  if they are homosexual.
Reply
#4
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
I know people won't agree with me but I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want to, provided no fundamental rights like personal survival or safety are at stake. Let people be bigots and you can know where and who they are, they expose themselves. Forcing bigots to be less bigots is just one way to create division in society and worsen the situation. If a shop refused to serve me for whatever reason, I don't think I should have the right to sue them, but rest assured I wouldn't step inside or buy anything from the same company ever again.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#5
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
But that is not the law in that state.
Reply
#6
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
(August 13, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I know people won't agree with me but I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want to, provided no fundamental rights like personal survival or safety are at stake. Let people be bigots and you can know where and who they are, they expose themselves. Forcing bigots to be less bigots is just one way to create division in society and worsen the situation. If a shop refused to serve me for whatever reason, I don't think I should have the right to sue them, but rest assured I wouldn't step inside or buy anything from the same company ever again.
A percentage of my tax dollars are used for the local, state and federal services that businesses utilize and benefit from, same as yours.
Your proposal could only be acceptable if a business did not use any taxpayer funded resources of any kind, whatsoever.
Btw, If a fire were to occur at this hypothetical business, they would need to have a private engine company at their disposal to to tame the flames. No using municipal water, either.
Reply
#7
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
(August 13, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I know people won't agree with me but I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want to, provided no fundamental rights like personal survival or safety are at stake. Let people be bigots and you can know where and who they are, they expose themselves. Forcing bigots to be less bigots is just one way to create division in society and worsen the situation. If a shop refused to serve me for whatever reason, I don't think I should have the right to sue them, but rest assured I wouldn't step inside or buy anything from the same company ever again.

The problem with an idea like this is it allows for oppression by the majority. Imagine you are a gay person living in a city dominated by Christian business owners with no anti discrimination laws, suddenly you cant buy groceries, get a job, or rent an apartment. We might as well go back to segregated society at that point, large majority groups could essentially force out minority groups.
Reply
#8
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
(August 13, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But that is not the law in that state.

Yes, Dura Lex Sed Lex - It's just my opinion

Quote:A percentage of my tax dollars are used for the local, state and federal services that businesses utilize and benefit from, same as yours.
Your proposal could only be acceptable if a business did not use any taxpayer funded resources of any kind, whatsoever.
Btw, If a fire were to occur at this hypothetical business, they would need to have a private engine company at their disposal to to tame the flames. No using municipal water, either.
[color]
I didn't know America, the land of the free where public services are supposedly hated had the government funding privately owned businesses, I've never heard of such a thing in my entire life - Even if that's true, why is your personal preference relevant? Most people would not want to pay taxes anyway, you're saying specifically that you do not wish to fund businesses that refuse to serve gays, but anti-gay Christians will, most likely, want to fund those businesses - If I'm transgender and genderqueer, can I refuse to fund a shop that segregates items by male/female because I think that's wrong? If not, why is your opinion any more relevant? You never know where your tax money goes, never - You just pay and you know it's going somewhere, no one knows certainly where it goes.[/color]

Yes, if someone is fired without proper cause, I don't see why the government is needed. In my country, if you're fired without compelling reason you have the right to both the employer's compensation and the government's pension, but both are separate rights that don't intersect with each other. Unemployment benefits are government provided and compensations are given by the employer in a court of Law when you're fired without a legally admissible reason.

Your personal preference about where you want your taxpayer money to go is not relevant because we all have them - Most of us don't even enjoy paying taxes, it's a coercive institution by its very nature. The fact people running businesses have preferences doesn't invalidate state funding.


Quote:The problem with an idea like this is it allows for oppression by the majority. Imagine you are a gay person living in a city dominated by Christian business owners with no anti discrimination laws, suddenly you cant buy groceries, get a job, or rent an apartment. We might as well go back to segregated society at that point, large majority groups could essentially force out minority groups.

The problem with imagining is that it leads to unrealistic scenarios, and I said specifically that essential rights shouldn't be taken away like survival, food, clothing and healthcare. I'm talking about privately owned businesses, government officials should follow the law no matter what. Baking a cake doesn't sound like an activity that is essential to your survival (unless you're arguing you only eat cakes) and it's an activity that can be provided by anyone else who specializes in bakery. Private businesses opened to the public are still private, and subjecting the market to government regulation decide by a small number of politicians who claim to be wise is just not a very good idea. What is the criterion to decide who's a protected class? And why? Rest assured, my country protects minorities as well, though there isn't a legal equivalent to protected class, but there are laws that create analogous situations - Still I find a lot of incongruences such as requirements being arbitrarily applied to some groups but not to others.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#9
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
delete
Reply
#10
RE: Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker
I think the government has a legitimate interest in a heterogenous society. The more homogenous certain areas are, the more civil and racial unrest when those lines get blurred for any of a number of reasons.

For this reason, the government has a vested interest in not allowing discrimination based on any of a number of protected classes. I don't think there's a specific criteria for what makes a protected class other than that class having been either marginalized or having its rights restricted or taken away.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you've ever been turned away from a business, Dys. I don't think you've ever experienced what it's like to be told that you are not good enough to shop at a store, eat at a restaurant, be a patron at a public establishment. I have. To some of the less educated yokels in this state, I look like I could be a Muslim. I have been called a raghead and told to leave a restaurant, that ISIS money was no good. I see the stupid fucking confederate flags that these idiots fly off their gas guzzling bubba trucks here, and I am reminded of America's history when we tried the separate but equal gambit. It doesn't work. It is nice in theory, but we tried it. It failed spectacularly, and the effects of it are still being felt today no matter where you look in this nation that bends itself to liberty, but really couldn't give a fuck about it.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Leaked Supreme Court Decision signals majority set to overturn Roe v. Wade Cecelia 234 24339 June 7, 2022 at 11:58 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Colorado shooting, 5 dead. brewer 0 381 December 28, 2021 at 8:11 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Supreme Court To Take Up Right to Carry Firearm Outside Home onlinebiker 57 3648 April 29, 2021 at 8:20 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Court Ordered Quarantine brewer 2 555 October 24, 2019 at 10:15 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Supreme Court Considers Mandatory Govt Funding of Religious Education EgoDeath 8 1161 September 24, 2019 at 10:37 am
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Fed Court, "hand over 8yrs of your finances" Brian37 15 1570 May 22, 2019 at 6:34 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2 Angrboda 330 27188 August 23, 2018 at 10:13 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Court of Appeals Tells Alabama Shitheads to "Fuck Off!" Minimalist 6 1393 August 23, 2018 at 2:00 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  America tries to tell the worlds infants No Boobs For You. brewer 76 11629 July 20, 2018 at 6:07 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker A Theist 371 60394 June 14, 2018 at 2:41 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)